A court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sound as the men who make it up. I am confident that you gentlemen will review without passion the evidence you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this defendant to his family. In the name of God, do your duty." Juror 8 is very outspoken because he is the only one in the beginning that think the boy is not guilty. This leads him to stand up against all of the other jurors so that he can clearly get his point across.
A grand jury is composed of twelve people, to determine if there is enough evidence to send an accused individual to trial. Although they may not determine if the accused individual is guilty or not, they can issue a formal document saying there is enough evidence for the prosecutor to take the accused to trial also known as an indictment. According to, Texas Politics Today, “a grand jury may return indictments simply because the district attorney asks them to.” Which in the end is not fair, because the jury may believe that there is not enough sufficient evidence, but because they feel pressured they issue an indictment.
Defending the Rights of the US Citizens: The Advantages of Jury Nullification. By: Bradyn Fix Jury nullification has been a fundamental aspect of the United States court system since the 1800s, but how does it make a difference in today's justice system? The process of jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case returns a not-guilty verdict even though they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. This means that the jury knows the defendant has committed a crime but still chooses to let them go.
The American Jury System offers the United States citizens an opportunity to be proven guilty or innocent when a crime has been committed. The twelve person jury system was established in England hundreds of years ago. Originally this system was made up of twelve men and this was huge because they had the power to go against what the judge wanted in court. There are many vital points as to why our American jury system is successful; jury trials by the numbers, ownership by jury members towards the accused, how reliable or unreliable evidence is viewed by jurors, gender balance and the detailed screening process in which jurors are selected.
According to Webster's dictionary, a juror takes an oath of allegiance to serve on a jury to determine if a defendant is innocent or guilty of a particular crime. Jurors are supposed to remain unbiased and open minded when dealing with a defendant, however some jurors do not. In the play 12 angry men written by Reginald Rose jurors 10 and 3 are examples of bad jurors because they both show heavy bias against the defendant. In the book 12 angry men jurors play a key role in whether the defendant lives.
As a result, the trial and the jury should be more objective. The jury's verdict on whether the defendant is guilty is essential to the operation of the jury system. Since their decision might have far-reaching effects, they have become an integral element of the trial process (Ruderman, 2020). However, this may also make jurors a troublesome part of the process since they may need to thoroughly examine the material or apply the right roof standards to hand down verdicts. 3 resolve these problems.
Every American citizen should serve on a jury because it allows new ideas into the verdict and it is fair to all Americans. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror 11 says, “I have always thought a man was entitled to have unpopular opinion in this country. This is the reason why I came here. I wanted the right to disagree” (28). To allow all American citizens to serve on a jury, it would allow different views and ideas from other countries to be heard.
If you have been listening to recent news from the United States, you will have heard the term "grand jury" in relation to the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. The United States is one of the few countries to have the grand jury system, although not all states use it, and their regulations vary by state. (Most people are familiar with the 12-person jury of peers who decides the guilt or innocence of a defendant by unanimous vote after deliberations that can last for hours or weeks.)
A grand jury is defined as “a panel of citizens that is convened by a court to decide whether it is appropriate for the government to indict (proceed with a prosecution against) someone suspected of a crime” (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2008). Typically, a grand jury will review any evidences presented against an individual to decide whether or not to press charges. Within grand juries, there are typically sixteen to twenty-three members who will decide whether or not there is probable cause or enough evidence to issue an indictment. In order for an indictment to be issued, at least twelve members of the grand jury must vote in agreement for it (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 2008). Instead of a grand jury, investigations
The concepts of the civil jury system date back to the Middle Ages “when twelve ‘compurgators,’ essentially witnesses, were gathered together to take an oath that [a] party was honest, or to attest that they had witnessed a relevant transaction. The assumption was that God would intervene on the side of the innocent person” (Doroshow 3). These essential prejudices boil down to the belief that each individual possesses an inalienable right to defend his/her self. The Founding Fathers of the United States supported this belief.
No. 8: I think that the jury system we have today has its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, a jury that consists of jurors who are biased could be manipulated by ‘outsiders’ through bribery or some jurors, as we have discussed before, might have some personal prejudices/beliefs that may affect their decision making. But there are some advantages as well because the decision that is made by the jury is thought out very carefully by a group of people. Interviewer: [gathers all his papers]
Someone has to come to court because they or someone else has been wronged. As citizens of this great country we have the honor and the trust to decide fairly over someone’s case. By fulfilling this civic duty, we carry out what the Constitution has given us. We have to preserve this right by responding when we are summoned to serve. How to Prepare for Jury Duty
A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.
I think that I would like to be on a jury and experience what is required of a juror, I think everyone should be a member of the jury at least once in their lifetime. Having to experience the juries’ duties on a civil or criminal case, in some instance would be hard. Especially in a murder case involving children or battered women. When the judge gives you direction to please disregard that statement. How can you disregard information that you have heard?
This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,
